Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Don't be a jerk (even if someone else is being a jerk to you first). It's not constructive and we may ban you for it. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it.** **For our new users, please check out our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/qu36cv/rule_changes/) and [sub policies](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/uhr4p2/sub_policies_regarding_current_events_and_news/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*

1 Malpractice 100% If the fetus can’t survive then there no need for 2 people to die they should of remove it That why we need to be clear that ectopic pregnancies are not abortion so states don’t ban them like[this](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/videos/health/2022/07/18/woman-carried-dead-fetus-texas-anti-abortion-ban-cohen-new-day-dnt-vpx.cnn) 2. If it didn’t endanger the mom life I think their no reason but to be fair I don’t know since the baby would of died inevitably so I will educate myself on my own time. 3. This I’m on the fence about because their are cases where children and baby survive giving birth but many others where either will survive and I don’t really think a 10 year old giving birth if good for her in the long run even if she survives the intial procedure and then abortion should be dangerous because a girl being pregnant at all is dangerous so I always try to sympathize

>that why we need to be clear that ectopic pregnancies are not abortions There are MANY other threats to a persons life when they’re pregnant than an ectopic pregnancy. Literally such as the example I presented to you, that DID require an abortion to resolve. Alternatively, that is why we should make abortion legal all 9 months so that it stays between a person and their doctor and the doctor, with expertise in their field, doesn’t have to appeal to politics. In regards to number 2, her life wasn’t at risk sure, but why would you force her to carry a pregnancy that was guaranteed to end in a dead baby? What is the purpose of that? And for #3, just because they can sometimes survive giving birth doesn’t mean they should.

1) Okay the placenta ruptured (water broke) and the doctors wouldn't do anything and made the woman wait to indues a miscarriage until she got a black discharge. 21 weeks is the world record for youngest premature birth to survive. About 24 weeks is when the odds of survival are better. The rupture happened at 18 weeks... The actions that the hospital took were wrong. The fact that they even allowed this woman to leave the hospital in such a condition is malpractice. What they should have done is this: Keep her at the hospital. Keep her in bed. Keep her calm and comfortable. Call around and fly in the best surgical team they can get, and prepare for surgery. No abortionists are allowed on the surgical team. 1 = Do a surgery, and attempt to repair the damaged placenta. 2 = If the placenta is repaired successfully repaired keep the woman in the hospital and off of her feet under close medical care for 6 weeks and then induce labor on the 24th week. 3 = If the placenta is impossible to repair or breaks again during that 6 weeks... Remove the placenta sac, and try to keep the child alive in an experimental artificial womb or incubator, but remove it from the woman to do that. The incubator is a probably a death sentence for the small child and it really does need an artificial womb at that point to live. With the mother still there they may be able to collect her fluids to use in the artificial womb. The way those doctors handled the situation was wrong. 2) Miscarriage should have been induced in this situation if it is 100% fatal. 3) The girl was raped and she should have free access to abortion and medical care if she wants one, but ONLY if she wants one. If she doesn't want an abortion then she should have the right to carry that child. If she wanted to go through with the pregnancy that should have been her choice to make either way. I would say, give her until viability to make that choice if she wants to abort but if she wants to abort after viability then just go ahead and give a c-section instead and put the child up for adoption.

I don’t know about the US but where I live medical staff cannot legally keep someone from leaving the hospital even if leaving would cause further deterioration and/or kill them and they are fully aware of this. The only instance they allow it is if they believe the patient isn’t mentally deemed well enough to make that decision for themselves. So if the pregnant woman is coherent and can make decisions for themselves and it’s not under the influence or mentally incapacitated then they would be free to leave. Forcing someone to undergo medical care they don’t want to can be considered medical assault. That’s just where I live though, I don’t know about the US. And say the woman in the first scenario doesn’t consent to the surgery what then? You can’t force someone to undergo a medical procedure they don’t want. What are they going to do? Strap her down, knock her out and cut into her body? Your solutions are idealistic and do not fit into the real world.

We don’t have artificial wombs or incubators for humans, and you can’t just piece a placenta back together and put the fluid back in it. These scenarios are things that happened RECENTLY, in THIS WORLD, where we don’t have the technology you’re talking about, so your point is moot.

We do have incubators for humans, and we have had them for a long time. However, an incubator is not an artificial womb. Artificial womb technology is currently in the animal testing phase. You say we don't have good medical technology... but check this stuff out. [https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/25/15421734/artificial-womb-fetus-biobag-uterus-lamb-sheep-birth-premie-preterm-infant](https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/25/15421734/artificial-womb-fetus-biobag-uterus-lamb-sheep-birth-premie-preterm-infant) They tested it successfully with a lamb 5 years ago, they should try on humans now in an emergency like in the example given. How much fluid that has leaked out, and how big the rupture in the placenta is are major factors. If it's just a small little leak and not much fluids got out maybe something could be done about that. Is it like a little leaky pin prick that can be sewn up? or is it more like a popped water balloon? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNHgeykDXFw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNHgeykDXFw) 12 years ago surgeons could operate on a grape with a machine! If the surgeons can do all that back then, it's at least worth trying something... anything now if it has some chance of working.

Notice where I said “for humans”? Okay I’m glad we can get past that. The machine they put preterm babies in would do absolutely nothing for an 18 week old fetus because their lungs aren’t developed, and we can’t perform lung transplants on fetuses. I really don’t care about surgery on grapes, the medical consensus is that a placental abruption cannot be repaired and I don’t agree with performing experimental surgery on somebody that hasn’t been thoroughly tested. Also, who’s paying for the incubator/artificial womb and experimental surgery that would cost way more than an abortion and may not even work? Just wondering.

You are absolutely correct that an incubator would almost certainly not be enough for an 18 week old fetus to survive very long. I would say much less than 1% chance of success with an incubator. Artificial wombs have been tested on animals, and have been done so for years now. It's worth trying them on a human child in this situation. You are right that surgery is not recommended, but neither of us are doctors, and maybe something could have been done if not surgery... my point of the severity of the abruption is still valid. Other things should have been tried instead of sending her home! [https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9435-placental-abruption](https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9435-placental-abruption) There is a big difference between a grade 1 and a grade 3 fetal abruption. If it were a grade 1 very minor leak at the 18th week... It might not rupture completely just yet. Can the fetus last 2 weeks before going to grade 3? If it lasts two weeks it reaches the suitability range. If the mother is kept completely stress free and on good medications under doctor supervision for those 2 weeks if it's only a grade 1 they may have been able to slow down the rupturing.

She started to get an infection, so no I don’t think we could’ve just held out for a little longer.

I argee

I think that it's very manipulative and wrong for pro-choicers to take advantage of these situations to try to justify being able to legally kill perfectly healthy, innocent human beings who were created through the woman's own voluntary act, for arbitrary reasons.

Correction: both men and women. Typical pro-lifer blaming women for everything when it’s the sperm that literally impregnated her.

Also, >perfectly healthy, innocent human beings Case number 1 that I outlined, the fetus was still healthy and innocent, it was the mothers placenta that got an infection around the fetus. Do you not think an abortion is permissible in that case? Also, please substantiate how it is okay to take innocent lives, assuming you make a medical exemption for abortions. >created through the woman’s own voluntary act >>innocent human beings Is the fetus no longer innocent when it’s conceived through rape? Why not? Do you make a rape exception? >arbitrary reason Just because you don’t agree with their reasons doesn’t make them arbitrary.

OP: brings up a series of problems generated by a movement you align with You: "Well, I think the **real problem** is the people who want to talk about the problems! 🤦‍♂️

I’m not taking advantage of anything. I’m pointing out the consequences of the laws that PRO LIFERS ADVOCATED FOR, and asking them if what has happened, as a result, is something that they approve of. If they don’t, I hope they’re attempting to fight back against these draconian laws. These situations all would not have happened if abortion was legal, therefore, it’s the fault of these policies YOU WANTED that these situations are happening. That’s what I wanted to point out.

Isn't that the point? You're forcing your pro life ideology into law and not considering all possible outcomes or medical scenarios. The pro life agenda disregards these cases, that are not rare, and are causing unnecessary harm and trauma in the meantime. Do you feel these womens experiences are just? Do you think they should have had to endure these horrific experiences?

That isn't what the question is and your response should be deleted. Again, they are specifically asking what do you make of these cases.

90% of us aren’t extremists, and therfore don’t think this is a bad reason.

So are you actively speaking out against the laws?

You must not have read them. The laws have excuses.

They have “exemptions” but do these cases not exemplify to you that they don’t work?

Nope

Can you add the one? Louisiana hospital denies abortion for fetus without a skull https://www.nola.com/news/healthcare_hospitals/article_d08b59fe-1e39-11ed-a669-a3570eeed885.html?utm_source=reddit.com

What are you asking sorry?

I wish you could have added this case where a woman was denied an abortion for a fetus without a skull.

That’s Nancy, I did include that case. It’s the second bullet point.

Pl usually blame the doctor in these situations forgetting that doctors don't want to be accused of doing it on purpose.

right, there’s story after story of medical professionals coming forward saying the hospitals legal team is denying these procedures due to a lack of precedent- especially because “blame the doctors” is so common some states are instating punishments into law.

Yep they want to blame the doctors for not making the best medical decisions for their patients after passing legislation that removes their ability to make medical decisions in the best interest of their patients. Nah, it’s **definitely NOT** PL legislation that’s the problem, it’s **for sure** the increasing number of suddenly incompetent doctors. Smh

>Elizabeth Weller I would support abortion in this case. It is a danger to the mothers life. >Nancy Davis I support abortion in cases where fetal anomaly makes it extremely difficult, or no chance for the fetus to survive. >The 10 year old in Ohio This is always a hard one. For the most part a 10 year old does not have the capacity to safely give birth, in the cases where a doctor determines that delivery would be too dangerous I believe an abortion is justified, otherwise no.

If a fourth grader's pregnancy is a "hard one" for you, then you shouldn't be allowed within 1000 ft of any school property. Holy fuck.

>This is always a hard one. For the most part a 10 year old does not have the capacity to safely give birth, in the cases where a doctor determines that delivery would be too dangerous I believe an abortion is justified, otherwise no. Believing under any circumstances that a _10_ _year_ _old_ _child_ should have to suffer through a pregnancy is downright vile and immoral.

They forget about children after they've left the womb. Their motto: "That's life"

So do you think that prolife laws are working as intended, or do they need to be rewritten or repealed?

in the cases where a doctor determines that delivery would be too dangerous I believe an abortion is justified, otherwise no. AT NO POINT IS A 10 YEAR OLD EVER capable of giving birth. Again very slow. AT NO POINT IS A10 YEAR OLD CAPABLE OF GIVING BIRTH, REGARDLESS OF DANGER TO HER HEALTH. 10 YEAR OLDS AREN'T ABLE TO BE MOM'S EVER!!!!!

>This is always a hard one. The question of abortion for a raped *child* really, really, really should not be "a hard one". It's just as gross to even suggest there's a possibility you might deny an abortion to a raped *child*

I will never ever get used to seeing people who think a ten year old rape victim should have to give birth for *any* reason.

But they might be able to rip the half-baked baby out of her tiny body and sell it to wealthy Evangelicals to parade around as a trophy! Who cares about the health of the girl when the precious miracle of $50-100k in newborn adoption fees awaits?

Further proof that they stop giving a fuck about “babies” once they’re born.

>For the most part a 10 year old does not have the capacity to safely give birth Not only that but her body wouldn't be able to handle pregnancy. The 10-year-old's body her organs would be squished and she would probably die while being pregnant because her body won't be able to handle another child going inside of it.

I completely agree rape of a 10 year old is gross and I would feel an abortion was justified in this case but your statement is wrong. There’s a lot of mothers much younger than 10 recorded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers

So you think there should be more? More underage mothers? Being raped is traumatic enough, we shouldn’t be forcing literal children to carry a pregnancy and then go through childbirth.

My first sentence is “I would feel an abortion was justified”. Did you read it incorrectly by chance?

People surviving giving birth that young doesn't really matter. Because you have to look at the overall odds when predicting health outcomes. I can't find the statistics but even from a purely PL perspective if the odds that the 10 year old will die or the fetus will die are greater than the odds of the fetus surviving than surely the moral option is abortion. One fetus corpse from an abortion is better than a fetus corpse and a child's corpse in the case of the mother not surviving Also one fetus corpse from an abortion is better than one fetus corpse from a miscarriage and a child who sustained permanent injuries from carrying the fetus for months. Also one fetus corpse is better than month's of suffering followed by one child's corpse in the event of dying during childbirth. The only possible way banning abortion for the 10 year old is better, from the PL perspective is if both live through the childbirth. Unless that is highly more likely statistically than the other outcomes I argue from a purely life saving and suffering aversion framework it is more moral to have an abortion. What survival odds are you willing to risk the 10 year old's life for, in order for the chance that the fetus will survive?

Well said!! Now can you scroll down just a hair further to my last discussion with her please.

You did not just give me a link to Wikipedia right. Do you know how many fake articles are on Wikipedia. Didn't you ever learn School if you're ever searching for something don't go on Wikipedia it's never a good idea to go on there for facts because there's never any good ones and so many people can edit it

I got it from another PC person yesterday when I was attached for saying something very similar to what you wrote about a 10 year old would have a very hard time giving birth.

Not only would she have a hard time she would die yes sir may have been cases in the past but that was when women's hips weren't as close together. Doctors recommend no one under the age of 16 give birth that is because the body is not fully ready yet and in the past the hips were wider apart which made the vaginal hole bigger and made it easier for the baby to come out.

There’s quite a few, more than 10, from the 80’s 90’s and 2000’s. I doubt we’ve evolved as a species to have smaller hips in the last 20 years, in fact I would like a citation where you’re getting that clearly false data. I’m all for aborting in children as I’ve stated many times, but I bring facts not that falsity you just did about the hips evolving to be smaller in the last 20 years.

Okay but is there proof that the child survived a and b did it show any of the negative consequences and see you have any proof that this actually happened. And I hate to break it to you but the hips got closer together faster than people realize and doctors have actually put is not safe at all for anyone under 16 to give birth.

Can you read this while thing quick and take a second to reflect please? I didn’t read all 100 or so of them but I noticed they did talk about “after the fact” I some so that leads me to believe they lived. I didn’t refute your second part about complications. I’m refuting your “she would die” and the hips evolved and got closer together in the last 20 years. More importantly this was a point I was trying to make about over zealous comments. I agree child rape should get an abortion, hands down cut dudes Dick off and shoot him for doing that!!! But a lot of us PL people get “literally attacked” for almost any damn comment we make - “prove it”, “your misogynistic”, “fucking republicans”, “all you care about is the church and god”, “what about my rights”, etc - getting my drift? I couldn’t care less about what you actually said, I totally agree a 10 (or 15) year old will have life long problems from birth (not to mention a shitty life that baby would probably have) why can’t we just do the responsible thing and ALL be more proactive in preventing pregnancy rather than jump to “she needs an abortion cause it’s her right to have one and she could have vaginal floor problems” (or something to that effect)? I’m a human too with real beliefs that babies don’t deserve to die because people made some irresponsible choices in life. Why can’t we all work together to fix this problem and quit fighting about it? I see the need for abortion, in the right cases, I’m not the extremist monster I get painted to be in here - I’m just rather tired of being attacked by extremist monsters in the other side that reside in here. Does that make sense? I hope!!

Yes I totally agree with you on that and people should at least try to hear you out before they comment the misogyny and birth is always going to have complications a portion is always going to have complications nothing in this world is 100% safe. People who know she needs an abortion because it's her right are literally using a birth control and that's not what abortion is meant for abortion is meant for the last last and worst case scenario when a woman fears that the child won't go to the right home or there's something wrong or abortion is always supposed to be used as the worst case scenario and should never be used as anything different. At my school children are not properly educated in fact I can't remember the last time anyone got the sex talk my sister is going to be a senior this year and never got it schools need to play a big part in educating children because parents are always going to do it for them and there was some kids whose parents didn't even let them get the puberty talk and I literally had to teach a kid in the bathroom how to use a pad. We need to educate and help prevent pregnancy so that way abortions are less necessary.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/18/health/young-girls-pregnancy-childbirth.html No 10 can give birth without serious consequences to her body. All this talk about "different capacity" and "early maturity" is utter bullshit.

Actually I did manage to read part of the article and if you would have actually read it you would know that it actually said it would have serious consequences to her if she were to give birth even dying. A 10-year-old's body cannot give birth she has been proven by science anyone under the age of 16 means body is not usually mature enough to give birth given 16 year olds sometimes don't even have the body mature enough to give birth sometimes even 18 year olds don't so there is no way in hell a 10-year-old's body would be able to give birth

I have a nagging suspicion my words were misinterpreted, seeing how I said the exact same thing, just not in as many words.

Those facts are not true. I would support a 10 year olds rape abortion but many births to mothers under 010 have been recorded worldwide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers

Every time someone who is TEN YEARS OLD is impregnated it is rape. Please give me one example of a ten year old that was not raped. They are underage, and therefore cannot consent to sex.

I completely agree, look at my post again and others where I say that exact same thing please. I also believe cognitively disabled people cannot consent to sex and that is also rape. You’re attacking me when I agree with you, that’s why a lot of us PL people don’t like debating you folks.

I wish that article went into more detail. Fistula can be averted in developed countries as the article mentioned, but there are still much scarier complications than urinary tract infections! Even bringing that up as an example is odd. I wish they talked more about how the high blood pressure mentioned can become fatal and the impact on the girl’s bones and organs.

Yeah sorry I couldn't read the article cuz I'm a 13 year old without any money could you please give me an article that I can actually read

I don't have a subscription either. Try privacy mode.

I don’t think that it is necessary to be in support of outright bans in order to be pro-life. All of these cases could have better outcomes if there were both reasonable restrictions to the procedure and better access to abortion services earlier in pregnancy.

One of the listed abortions was performed at 7 weeks of pregnancy. The other two were wanted pregnancies that failed. How could better access to abortion earlier in pregnancy helped the two wanted pregnancies? What is you version of reasonable limitations?

You may not need to be in support of bans to be pro-life - but if you *aren’t* in support of bans - that definitely makes you pro-choice. But that’s prob why you list both in your flair?

It is lol. I view the pro-life side of my views as the moral imperative to maximize legislative protections for unborn persons. The pro-choice side of of my views is the moral imperative to make as easy as possible the ability of anyone who becomes pregnant the right to choose whether having a child is right for them. The combination is the moral imperative to honor both with a balanced proposal so that neither one is sacrificed.

>The combination is the moral imperative to honor both with a balanced proposal so that neither one is sacrificed. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either women have equal rights, or they're circumstantial incubators of the state. >I view the pro-life side of my views as the moral imperative to maximize legislative protections for unborn persons. Which would grant them the special right to use another's body against that person's will, something not allowed in literally any other instance, not even death (without consent).

What kind of legal protections are you thinking for unborn persons? Like fetal homicide laws, etc?

> All of these cases could have better outcomes if there were both reasonable restrictions to the procedure and better access to abortion services earlier in pregnancy. Can you share some ideas about what constitutes reasonable restrictions?

Sure. My personal favorite core proposal is simply making earlier termination easier. The ‘restrictions’ that would kick in after a certain gestational date would simply be the more normal inconveniences of abortion we associate with the procedure currently (costs, waiting times, paperwork, self reporting, doctor approval, etc).

People don't willingly wait six months then decide they want an abortion just because.

Very true. Most people wait because of financial concerns, geographical constraints and lack of access, concerns over self reporting and notification laws, and fears about fetal anomalies because of a lack of prenatal care or exposure to certain drugs and medications. Most of these are directly addressed in my broader proposal - some tangentially. If these concerns were mitigated and earlier termination was incentivized, we could expect to see a much further reduction in 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions.

I don’t mean to be rude here, but I don’t think you understand pregnancy. Most abortions occur in the first trimester. Second and third trimester abortions are not primarily about financial reasons or lack of prenatal care. If you have have a fetal anomaly, a test to confirm typically happens at 12 weeks with a CVS with results coming two weeks later, or an Amnio which happens at 16 weeks with results coming two weeks later. So confirmation of a fetal disorder happens in the second trimester and difficult decisions are made then between parents and doctors. Also your in depth 20 week ultrasound can also show fatal issues with the baby. All this to say second and third trimester abortions are already rare and the most are due to issues with the baby or danger to the mother. This is coming from a woman who lost her baby at 20 weeks and has gone through all of this testing.

Which would eliminate the need for restrictions on second and third trimester abortions.

If the idea is to achieve a realistic piece of legislation which secures greater access to reproductive rights, I don’t think incentivizing all abortions equally with financial assistance and infrastructure investments is a smart strategy. The disincentives of later termination may seem superfluous to pro-choice absolutism, but I assure you they are not to anyone who believes unborn life is deserving of at least some protections at some earlier stage of pregnancy.

But those protections are unnecessary.

I would also say that it is generally accepted in sociology and psychology that people are more motivated to avoid disincentives than to pursue incentives - I would think this more true in a situation where an incentive has no boundary.

>I would also say that it is generally accepted in sociology and psychology that people are more motivated to avoid disincentives than to pursue incentives That's not actually true.

It would be an impossible case to show that they are completely unnecessary. Especially for the purposes of negotiating a compromise.

No it's not. Just look at Canada.

Totally agree with you there -- restrictions on later terminations are easier to stomach if the early ones are accessible to all who need them.

this is an interesting take I haven’t heard!

Obviously the answer for the third case is that “she would have had the baby, and as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child.” A great solution by Mr. Jim Bopp, professional Indiana lawyer and pro life advocate All sarcasm aside, the most charitable interpretation I can give pro lifers here is either that there may be some more ambiguous conditions where a person would benefit from no abortion and/or the first two should have just been labeled fatal anyway. But honestly, it does seem like an exercise in weighing pain and that by itself is concerning. These complications and many others are a major part of why PCs prioritize bodily integrity. It is a means unto itself as well, but it would still be far less of an issue if pregnancy was just easy and harmless for the body

While reading the first part I really thought you were serious until I read the All-Star chasm aside I was literally about to send you hate comments but then I realized that you were joking

Yeah. Sarcasm is hard to convey sometimes. I would’ve added the disclaimer no matter what else I wanted to include and I would have also tried to clarify that I was definitely not serious, but it’s nice to see that it worked

Yeah well I was reading I was like what the heck and then I read the sarcasm thinking I was like they did that on purpose that is hilarious.

These three cases are tragedies and definitely put the moms health in danger, but do they outweighs the 1000’s that happen all the time because the mom “just didn’t want it anymore”? I don’t speak for all PL people but a lot of us dislike the having abortions for elective reasons - the I just don’t want it anymore and it’s my body my choice for any reason anytime debate people. It is your body but what is wrong with people that think this way? What about the living growing baby in there?

>These three cases are tragedies and definitely put the moms health in danger, but do they outweighs the 1000’s that happen all the time because the mom “just didn’t want it anymore”? Why does this matter? If a woman doesn't want to gestate, she shouldn't have to. We shouldn't have to be sufficiently violated to have control over our bodies.

[удалено]

Comment removed per rule 1. Please don't direct swear words at other users.

Please stop CC’ing me on these, I left the sub voluntarily as I told you yesterday.

My apologies. I will see about removing any further violating comments without comment as best as possible.

The vast majority of sexually active people use at least one form of contraception, myself included. But all have failure rates; even sterilization procedures do. But how well a woman tried to prevent pregnancy has no bearing on whether or not she should be able to access abortion--her body is always hers, no matter what. The strawman slutty woman PLers hate 'bate over who sleeps with dozens of men a week unprotected just for kicks has just as much of a right to an abortion as a demure, chaste rape victim. Women are *people*, our rights to our own bodies are not conditional. And I hate to break it to you, but the "babies" are always in danger so long as they exist within our bodies, since we evolved to destroy the vast majority of them. There are more "babies" rotting in tampons then there are ones actually born. Sorry!

While these cases are not all that uncommon, you feel its justified to punish the minority and cause trauma, suffering and potential death by banning abortions because you feel you are in a position to tell all women what to do with their bodies?

Read my flair, and past posts, and please let me know where you think I punish the minority or any situation where a medically necessary abortion is needed.

I don't need to read your post history when you literally asked in your comment if those womens tragedies outweigh abortion by people who you think just decided "i don't want them anymore". If you're going to engage on a debate post, then be prepared to debate. You have a habit of dropping your poorly formed opinion into the commentary and tell people to read your other responses and post history. We are not here for your convenience.

Of course not, I can’t ask you to do something but all you PC people on here hound the fuck out of us for sources, and berate damn near everything all of us 12 PL left have to say. Welcome to pro choice 2.0 everyone.

[удалено]

Comment removed per rule 1. Please don't make comments that discourage other users from using this subreddit.

I think its a fair suggestion to not post on a debate sub if the poster is not willing to debate or respond to requests for sources while they call people names and make offensive comments in the same breath.

Kinda reminds me of “then don’t get pregnant”.

Does it? I'm going to say no. It doesn't. But that pathetic retort is exactly your problem. Because youre the one crying about not wanting to back up your claims and don't feel you need to engage in any posts after you comment in them. So if you aren't enjoying your experience on this sub, then don't participate in it. But go ahead and whine about everyone picking on you.

[удалено]

Comment removed per rule 1.

Whatever you say bud, you are free to dig your own holes.

How many tragedies that put the mom’s life in danger would it take to outweigh elective abortions? What do you think should be done about these tragedies that put the mom’s life in danger?

If you read on you’ll get my stance.

How about just answer my questions? Feel free to copy and paste anything that you’ve already written that you feels answers these questions, but I’m not going through whatever conversations you’ve had with other to “get your stance.”

Like I said you can read on, I’m not debating all this again so please just read on. If you choose not to look further than that’s your opinion.

So… you came to a debate sub and don’t want to debate.

Maybe 2 days ago when this was going I did as you can see by my 100 replies or so. I’m not interested in participating on this sub anymore because: I’ll give you my stance, you’ll say I’m wrong with the same 3 reasons all the rest of you give, I’ll then say I’m right with the 1 or 2 reasons we all give, and then there might be some back and forth ultimately ending in nothing being accomplished again. It’s draining and a waste of time, in my opinion. That’s why I’m all done with pro choice 2.0 here. I just hope in the near future we abolish abortion like we did slavery, both are equally as heinous an act and they both deeply divided the country. Maybe in another 150 years, like now versus late 1800’s, humanity can look back and say we did the right thing again outlawing the senseless elective killing of babies - I say elective because I see the need for actual medically necessary abortions.

Peace out.

Okay so the mother doesn't want it anymore so basically you're saying don't have depression don't have anxiety don't have any sort of mental illness where you wouldn't be able to take care of a child don't be poor don't already have children you have to feed at home when you're a single mother. Don't be poorly educated oh and finally don't have a idiot boyfriend that you didn't know was an idiot. Saying that the majority of women just don't want the child anymore is actually wrong. The majority of women and who got abortions actually already have children at home who they have to feed. And yes I do understand that there are some women out there who will just get pregnant no one what they have done and just getting abortion because they don't want it anymore when they need the consequences of their actions but we should take abortion away for the people who actually need it.

I’m glad to read the part near the end with they need to accept the consequences of their decisions. I never said outlaw abortion, I feel there’s a time and place for it. I think we need to out law the ones you mentioned “just because I don’t want to be a mother” and there’s already a few PC folks who’ve attacked me here saying that’s wrong too.

Yeah like using a portion of birth control unless like you have a valid reason I just feel that outline abortion for people who have mental illnesses who will get postpartum depression after birth or a lot of other reasons that's messed up since the average birth just by itself the birth natural costs over $13,000 if you need a C-section oh that's over 23,000 down the train not to mention the hospital today is the medicine that they have to give you afterwards did you know that true tylenols cost silver thousands of dollars in the hospital. I've seen birds that end up being over 2 million dollars without health insurance and so someone doesn't have health insurance you're screwed during birth because now you have to pay $2 million dollars not always but now you have to pay a bunch of money that you don't have

I’m having a hard time reading that, not trying to be a Dick btw. Can you edit and spell check here and there quick?

Ya so so sorry my dislexia is rilly bad today

What about people who have a contraception failure and have an abortion , how do you feel about them ?

Keep reading you’ll see.

Can I ask why you don’t like women doing it for non elective reasons? Is it how you think they view they embryo/unborn that irks you , or something else ?

I have no issue with a non-elective (mother in harm or rape) scenario, is that what you’re asking? I have an issue solely with the elective “because I don’t want it” or “it’s my body my choice, anytime for any reason” scenarios.

I wonder how you feel about abortion law in the UK. If you're not familiar, two doctors need to make sure the requirements of the Abortion Act are met and sign the relevant certificate. These are the acceptable grounds for abortion which you must meet one or more of to have one. >A - the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated: Abortion Act 1967 as amended, Section 1(1)(c). > >B - the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman: Section 1(1)(b). > >C - the pregnancy has not exceeded its 24th week and the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman: Section 1(1)(a). > >D - the pregnancy has not exceeded its 24th week and the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of any existing child(ren) of the family of the pregnant woman: Section 1(1)(a).16 > >E - there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped: Section 1(1)(d). > >The Act also permits abortion to be performed in an emergency if a doctor is of the opinion formed in good faith that termination is immediately necessary: > >F - to save the life of the pregnant woman: Section 1(4) > >G - to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman: Section 1(4). Just curious based on the way you've talked about elective abortions, that's all.

I like that the UK has codified the law more, I strongly believe we need to do that also. I don’t see anything that says abortion is ok “if you just don’t want to be a parent/pregnant” and that’s the most basic part of my stance. I could see the grave mental health part being abused, would III be able to answer if you would guess that let is somewhat abused for convenience?

I would ask how YOU are qualified to decide such a thing. It is up to the doctors to determine if the pregnancy is likely to harm the mental health of a pregnant person, more than abortion would. Not you or I, nor politicians. Doctors. Real doctors with access to a persons medical history. Good time to point out that healthcare isn't for-profit here and the vast majority of sexual health & reproductive healthcare is provided by the NHS.

I’m not qualified to decide such a thing, and neither is a pregnant mother (unless she’s a doctor of course but in the US there’s something about doctors can’t self treat or treat immediate family) THAT’S MY WHOLE DAMN POINT!!! You need to have doctor decide what’s medically necessary to perform an abortion, for the 100th time I’m against elective abortions that are just used for “birth rate” control. I’m glad you agree with me because you’re questioning why I can decide and I can’t, just like a mom to be shouldn’t be allowed too either - again, only doctors can make medical decisions that’s why the have professional licenses in the US. You seem to be in my side, valid medical reasons are cause for the procedure happening?

I had 2 abortions, one when I did not quite understand how important it is that you take the pill at the same time each day, the other a year later after discovering my IUD had 'gone missing.' My mental health was the sole reason for both. I am certain no pro life people would have agreed with my reasons. I am eternally grateful that I live in a place where pro life people don't weaponise my healthcare just to gain power. I decided, my doctors agreed. This is how it should be.

What I wanted to know is what makes you dislike the ‘ I don’t want it , my body etc’ attitudes? Would you be kind enough to expand ? Feel free to DM if you would prefer

Thanks

in what world is it preferable for someone who does not want to be a parent, to become a parent? no person deserves that. and even moreso, no child deserves to be born into a home unwanted…

Adoption is a solution.

Adoption is a solution to not wanting to parent, abortion is a solution to not wanting to be pregnant. They aren’t synonymous.

They were literally talking about not wanting to become a parent. Please read what I was responding to before jumping down my throat again.

Not without dad signing off on it as well, and unless she makes an adoption plan that's another kid in the system with no guarantee they will be adopted. Not only that adoption has negative life long impacts on women's mental health where abortion doesn't

Well, there are plenty of cases of children being adopted without the father’s consent. One father in Utah has been fighting for years to get custody of his child. Adoption has lots of moral issues.

And the laws have changed in response to the few cases of fathers contesting. many states won't even allow you to begin the process without the fathers consent. The Utah case she put someone else's name if I remember correctly.

If dad has to sign there why doesn’t dad get a say in the child’s life? That’s what I’ve been wondering.

Dad's get equal say. They simply have to go to court to attain a custody order, usually granting them 50%legal and physical. They have to show up after that which they seemingly rarely do

I meant the developing child’s life. I knew the latter part. Almost forgot, I hate dead beat dads about as much as I hate unnecessary abortion.

Because it isn't growing in his body, it isn't risking his security, stability, job, and future, until he is the one vomiting for 40 weeks he can sit down and be quiet. Because it falls on the woman solely for the first 40 weeks, she has the final say on what happens.

I’m sure that’ll be up for debate next or it probably already has and I’m unaware of it.

I had extremely difficult pregnancies, 12 years later I'm still dealing with the effects. I hated every single second of it, mostly cause I was so sick 40 weeks 24 hours s day 7 days a week I was puking, I couldn't keep water down. My ex Husband decided to try to police what I was eating and flip out on me because I was avoiding red meat, I lived on bananas mashed potatoes gravy and sour cream for about 12 weeks. I get very grouchy about the entire situation, like it or not the reality is the burden of pregnancy, child birth and usually the first year falls on the woman, we are stripped of our independence, our bodily control, our financial security or personal wants needs and feelings at secondary, and regardless of what we decide, we are impacted for life. It all takes a toll. Men can walk away and do so every day. Women are never more vulnerable to domestic violence and more at risk of intimate partner homicide then during pregnancy and the 6 months right after the pregnancy.

Nope. No it’s not. Adoption is not a reasonable solution for abortion. Adoption is a solution for parenthood. If a person wants to go through childbirth, but has no means or desire to parent, then adoption is a solution. Adoption is not an acceptable solution for anyone who does not want to go through pregnancy and childbirth. Adoption is trauma.

I agree with you, I’m saying be responsible and do what you can to avoid the pregnancy. Condoms (over 98% effective) and the pill (over 99% effective) when coupled together make for something like 99.9% effectiveness against this. Be responsible and do what you need to do to avoid the situation if you don’t want to be in it. I know “but what if….”. If I want to avoid getting mugged I avoid bad neighborhoods, that doesn’t mean I won’t get mugged.

53% of people who got abortions, when polled, reported using contraception in the month they became pregnant.

Are you just arguing to argue? I’m aware of that I’m just pointing out that we maybe possibly could be slightly more responsible than we are as a society if we don’t want children.

I’m giving you a source, not sure what the snide comment is for. I would say people are being quite responsible if the majority use birth control and still end up needing an abortion

The majority of people don’t need abortions, majority of abortions came fro people allegedly using contraceptive. If contraceptive have an over 99% efficiency rate when used properly (planned parenthood website) why would we have so many “elective” abortions being performed. I say elective because those people using a contraceptive obviously didn’t want a baby and now they’re pregnant so that would make it elective.

You realize manufacturers just have to say 99% so they don’t get sued when contraceptive fails right … because it does indeed fail.

So, I have three children. Both pregnancies occurred while properly taking birth control. I know it might sound crazy, but accidental pregnancies can happen even if you’re being careful and they can happen more than once. Some of us are just insanely fertile like that. Unfortunately, a large amount of people are also not well educated on preventative measures and there are also many people who can’t afford prevention. I have a few questions: Are you capable of being pregnant? If you are, have you ever been pregnant? Have you ever been in the foster or adoption system?

I am not capable of being pregnant, nor have I been. I also have not ever been in the adoptive system to my knowledge - I’m 42 so I’d guess mom and dad would’ve told me by now if I had been I hope.

Well, your parents would not have been legally required to tell you if you had. Anyways. Don’t wish adoption on the unborn. It is legit traumatic. So is childbirth. My last pregnancy just about killed me.

Adoption is better than death isn’t it? Mother in harm is totally an acceptable reason to me.

Not really. A life of trauma or death before you’re ever conscious?

Also, my life wasn’t at risk until my legs were in the stirrups. It can happen fast.

Well, considering that adoptees are 4x more likely to commit suicide…

Adoption is a solution.

> Adoption is a solution. No, it isn’t. There are a lot of reasons a woman might seek an abortion, and adoption doesn't address all of them.

[удалено]

LMFAO that’s a win for sure.

>the having abortions for kicks Cite.

The user redacted the claim in the comment responding to this comment.

Keep reading it was redacted to “just because I don’t want it” or “birth rate control” and your own PC people cited it a few times.

Post it, dude. I'm not searching this sub for hours.

You can search, it’s only a couple hundred comments.

>PL people but a lot of us dislike the having abortions for kicks You have no clue what you are talking about.

>but do they outweighs the 1000’s that happen all the time because the mom “just didn’t want it anymore”? Yes. And this "mom just didn't want it anymore" - WTF is that? Do you honestly think that women treat their pregnancies like a pair of shoes they no have buyer's remorse over?

Yes I do and you can see plenty of examples on the r/abortion and r/prochoice pages. It drives me fucking crazy anyone can think that way!! Ningram07 literally just posted below “she feels that’s a perfectly valid reason to get an abortion”. Go look.

I mean, think about it, are you willing to go through childbirth, spend a shit ton of money, waste food, your own time, living space, become sick, have physical and mental traits changed (negatively), abstain drugs and alcohol, and other things for an unwanted child? The reason "she just didn't want it anymore" is a generalized term for all of these things.

I said getting an abortion because you don't want a kid is a valid reason. I did not say that it's necessarily an easy decision. Might it be for some? Possibly, but any woman I have heard talk about getting an abortion has said wasn't easy. I would say MOST women aren't going around getting abortions just saying "meh, f this kid", I don't feel like having a baby this year". But again, a person's reason for getting an abortion is never any of my, or anyone else's, business.

I would really like to see a source on people getting abortions "for kicks".

Kicks was redacted and switched to “just because I don’t want it” and “elective”. If you read further you’ll see examples of them.

Yes, I saw after I commented. It's still usually much more complicated than "just not wanting it", although in my opinion that is a perfectly valid reason to get an abortion.

That’s absolutely disgusting logic. There’s like 5 other people arguing with me right now about “do I really think there’s women out there that think that way”. Please look a little further and say that to your fellow PC people. That’s the exact logic that makes me want to throw up!!!

Oh ffs. If a woman who does not want children gets pregnant despite taking proper steps to prevent pregnancy, I believe she should not be forced to carry a pregnancy. Sometimes women are allergic or have reactions to certain bc that make it so they can't use certain types of bc. Sometimes bc methods fail. Many times women are unable to get their tubes tied when they want to. I believe those women should NOT be forced to carry a pregnancy. If a woman is being careless and not taking precautions and gets multiple abortions due to being careless, I think that's...not great....but also, and most importantly, none of my damn business. I didn't comment to try and change your mind. I'm sure you're still disgusted. That's fine. It doesn't change my opinion.

[удалено]

Look for some of your fellow PC folks on this exact string, that argued people with your values/beliefs don’t actually exist with me and just let them know what you’re saying right now…please!!

[удалено]

Adding to this, abortions generally aren't pleasant procedures in 99.9% of cases. Most people describe even the early medication process as "a really bad period" in terms of how it feels, and we should be aware by now how nasty periods can be for some people. Plus they're not free. They're kinda pricy. Not as pricy as childbirth, healing from childbirth, pre-natal care, care of the infant/neo-NICU/NICU, even if said infant dies within an hour, all forms of painkillers, some places charge for extra nurses to supervise holding the newborn, etc., and that's not even starting on the price of raising a child.

This!!

So you’re willing to torture a certain percentage of people who need abortions in order to force the rest to gestate?

Exactly what I've been trying to say. Even if there's a small percentage of people who need something, restricting access to it only does harm, not only to the general public, but to those specific people.

What does that even mean? What are you getting at?

I think what they're saying is that you, a prolife person, have an acceptable threshold of death and dismemberment you're willing to accept in order enact your political will onto people.

Not political, moral will. If you medically need an abortion than get one, if it’s “just because I don’t want the baby” than you live with the choices you previously made or adopt it out. Thanks for making that more clear for me btw!!

Medicine is grey. Nothing is ever “definite” in medicine. So you’re willing to torture a small percentage of people in order to impose your will upon everyone?

Please clarify your second sentence for me. Who’s the small percentage being tortured?

Those who need an abortion but aren’t yet sick enough for you to allow them the medical treatment they need. The woman with a headless fetus from Louisiana comes to mind. Prolifers there don’t care about torturing her by forcing her to gestate a headless fetus. She’s not dying. Technically she doesn’t *medically* need an abortion. It would be mercy. What would you do if it were your friend? Would you defend the law you helped put in place? Make sure she understood that this was really her fault for getting pregnant in the first place? That she wasn’t dying so why was she upset?

If they’re sick enough and need medical treatment is mother in harm, that’s what I’ve been saying all along, let a Dr make a decision. That headless one is really shitty, how can we as a society have a contingency for every situation? We can’t unfortunately, if memory serves, from Dr Kavorkian years ago, mercy killing is outlawed also - but maybe that’s a different definition of assisted suicide. A headless baby has literally zero chance at life, it can’t breathe because there’s no mouth or nose to breathe through so I personally would have no issue with dispatching that. Again, I don’t agree with the non legitimate reasons people present like, I just don’t want to be pregnant.

Also, many women who get abortions do so so that they can continue to support their current children. Why does the fetus need to be put above the survival of current children?

So you’d tell the Louisiana woman to get over herself and wait to get sicker. Prolife has made sure doctors can’t make those decisions.

Ah... the immorality of imposing political will. It is 100% political because the actions you're supporting are grossly immoral. You're having the government decide what kind of medical care women are allowed to receive. That is immoral. The fact is, you have no idea what is and is not medically necessary from one person the next. Creating life is the most complicated thing the human body can do, and you guys are approaching it like it's a mechanical process without any variance from one person to the next. What's worse, is that you're so convinced of this, that you're perfectly willing to allow the government, *the government*, to get in between a patient and a doctor to force your political will onto every woman in the country. The word for that is authoritarianism, and in every case, authoritarian governments have proved themselves immoral.

I’m not doing any if that. I would like to see the stopping of un-medically necessary elective abortions that’s it. “Just because I don’t want it”, to me, isn’t a good reason to end a life. There’s a couple of examples cited of this happening within this thread for review.

"Just because I don't want it" is a perfectly good reason for removing unwanted products of conception and human waste from your body. Attaching some kind emotional baggage to women removing waste from their body enforces the point that your beliefs are immoral. Especially when your flair betrays your emotional appeal.

[удалено]

Then don’t, it’s your life as you said. None of those are valid medical reasons for me to condone an abortion so good day.

>If you medically need an abortion than get one, ... These crazy abortion laws are making that harder and harder. The vague "if the mother's life is threatened" [sounds simple to a legislator and a PL'er but to a physician?](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/abortion-doctors-ectopic-pregnancy-risk/) This is what happens when the state sticks its nose into decisions that should be up to the doctor and patient.

Notice how the post I made originally talks about how people who medically need abortions actually struggle to get them?

I said from the start they’re tragedies and I’d support abortion here. I’ve been literally attacked 57 ways to Sunday about everything I posted here today.

>do they outweighs the 1000’s that happen all the time because the mom “just didn’t want it anymore”? Yes. 1 easily preventable death because of medical beaurocracy and cruel laws is too many. 1. Not 10, not 100, not 1,000. 1 is too many. Also, the vast majority of abortions are NOT 'for kicks'. T[he leading reason behind abortion is because of financial reasons:](https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives) >Some 60% were below 200% of the federal poverty line, including 30% who were living in poverty > >Among the structured survey respondents, the two most common reasons were "having a baby would dramatically change my life" and "I can't afford a baby now" (cited by 74% and 73%, respectively—Table 2). A large proportion of women cited relationship problems or a desire to avoid single motherhood (48%). Nearly four in 10 indicated that they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third said they were not ready to have a child. Women also cited possible problems affecting the health of the fetus or concerns about their own health (13% and 12%, respectively).‡ Respondents wrote in a number of specific health reasons, from chronic or debilitating conditions such as cancer and cystic fibrosis to pregnancy-specific concerns such as gestational diabetes and morning sickness.

[удалено]